Montana Judge Rules Gender Law Unconstitutional: Conservative Values Challenged
Submitted by MAGA
Posted 2 days ago
A Montana judge has ruled that a law defining sex as either "male" or "female" is unconstitutional. The law, which was passed in 2023, sought to revise state laws to provide a common definition for the word "sex" when referring to a human. It accurately and specifically defined "male" as a member of the human species who, under normal development, has XY chromosomes and produces or would produce small, mobile gametes, or sperm, during his life cycle and has a reproductive and endocrine system oriented around the production of those gametes. "Female" was defined as a member of the human species who, under normal development, has XX chromosomes and produces or would produce relatively large, relatively immobile gametes, or eggs, during her life cycle and has a reproductive and endocrine system oriented around the production of those gametes.
The law was sponsored by Republican state Sen. Carl Glimm, who said it was needed after a state judge ruled in 2022 that transgender people could change the gender markers on their birth certificates. The law was signed by Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte, who said it codified the long-recognized and commonsense definition of sex.
However, District Court Judge Shane Vannatta ruled that the law was unconstitutional, claiming that it violated the United States Constitution. The judge argued that the law's description did not explicitly state its purpose and that the bill's title did not adequately explain whether the word "sex" referred to gender or sexual intercourse. The judge added that it did not indicate the words "male" and "female" would be defined in the body of the bill.
The ruling came after a group of plaintiffs who identify as "transgender," "nonbinary," "intersex," and "other identities" sued the state. The plaintiffs argued that the law denied legal recognition and protection to people who "identify" as "gender-nonconforming." The American Civil Liberties Union of Montana applauded the ruling, with legal director Alex Rate saying that it was an important vindication of the safeguards that the Montana Constitution places on legislative enactments.
The Montana Attorney General's Office spokeswoman Emilee Cantrell said her office would continue to defend the law "that reflects scientific reality." The law is similar to those passed in Kansas and Tennessee. The bill was passed in 2023 during a legislative session when a ban on gender transition treatment for minors was also approved. At the same time, transgender Democrat state Rep. Zooey Zephyr was expelled from the House floor after a protest against Republican lawmakers who had silenced him.
This ruling is a clear example of the ongoing battle between conservative values and the progressive agenda. While conservatives believe in the traditional definition of sex and gender, progressives argue for a more fluid and inclusive definition. This ruling is a setback for conservatives who believe in the importance of preserving traditional values and protecting children from harmful ideologies. It is also a reminder of the need for conservatives to continue fighting for their values and standing up against the progressive agenda.
Sources:
lifesitenews.com
slaynews.com
moonbattery.com
The law was sponsored by Republican state Sen. Carl Glimm, who said it was needed after a state judge ruled in 2022 that transgender people could change the gender markers on their birth certificates. The law was signed by Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte, who said it codified the long-recognized and commonsense definition of sex.
However, District Court Judge Shane Vannatta ruled that the law was unconstitutional, claiming that it violated the United States Constitution. The judge argued that the law's description did not explicitly state its purpose and that the bill's title did not adequately explain whether the word "sex" referred to gender or sexual intercourse. The judge added that it did not indicate the words "male" and "female" would be defined in the body of the bill.
The ruling came after a group of plaintiffs who identify as "transgender," "nonbinary," "intersex," and "other identities" sued the state. The plaintiffs argued that the law denied legal recognition and protection to people who "identify" as "gender-nonconforming." The American Civil Liberties Union of Montana applauded the ruling, with legal director Alex Rate saying that it was an important vindication of the safeguards that the Montana Constitution places on legislative enactments.
The Montana Attorney General's Office spokeswoman Emilee Cantrell said her office would continue to defend the law "that reflects scientific reality." The law is similar to those passed in Kansas and Tennessee. The bill was passed in 2023 during a legislative session when a ban on gender transition treatment for minors was also approved. At the same time, transgender Democrat state Rep. Zooey Zephyr was expelled from the House floor after a protest against Republican lawmakers who had silenced him.
This ruling is a clear example of the ongoing battle between conservative values and the progressive agenda. While conservatives believe in the traditional definition of sex and gender, progressives argue for a more fluid and inclusive definition. This ruling is a setback for conservatives who believe in the importance of preserving traditional values and protecting children from harmful ideologies. It is also a reminder of the need for conservatives to continue fighting for their values and standing up against the progressive agenda.
Sources:
lifesitenews.com
slaynews.com
moonbattery.com
Latest News
